It has become an article of faith among political pundits that GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump is energizing the white working class.

Trump is “rallying white working class voters,” Bill Schneider wrote for Reuters in December.

The New Yorker’s James Surowiecki wrote last year of Trump’s “popularity among working-class voters,” which has allowed him to appeal to voters former 2012 GOP presidential nominee Mitt “Romney couldn’t reach.”

Political scientist Justin Gest wrote for Reuters that Trump “bluntly acknowledges an acute sense of loss that has been uniquely felt by the white working class.”

This week alone, MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough said Trump could compete in Pennsylvania because of the “sort of white working class bastions that would provide him opportunities to win”; CNN political commentator Matt Lewis declared that Trump’s “populist, protectionist, anti-globalist trade politics … I think plays well with a lot of working class Americans out there”; and conservative commentator Hugh Hewitt told MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell “The white poor, the white working class in America feels very cut out by elites like you and me,” but “Trump is tapping into them in a big way.”

And yet, as New York Magazine’s Ed Kilgore recently noted, poll numbers actually show that Trump is now less popular with the white working class than Romney was. In 2012, Romney won 62 percent of noncollege-educated white voters. The latest NBC-Wall Street Journalpoll showed that Trump isn’t even winning a clear majority with the group, with just 49 percent backing him. A McClatchy/Maristpoll puts him even lower, at 46 percent. This is a reversal from earlier in the summer, when Trump’s support among the group was in the 60s, higher than Romney’s, though not by leaps and bounds.

Much of the analysis of Trump’s support was based on the fact that he did very well indeed among a particular group of white working-class voters early on: those who planned to vote in the GOP primary. Surowiecki, for instance, cited a July 2015 Washington Post/ABC Newspoll that showed a third of white GOP voters without college degrees had decided to support Trump, more than his rivals in the then-crowded field.

But one third of white working-class voters planning to vote in a GOP primary is not that many people. Trump got about 13 million primary votes, total. Even if half of those were from white working class voters, that’s still less than 3 percent of the 226 million eligible voters in 2016.

Within that GOP primary, for instance, the income differences between backers of the major candidates was not large over the course of the contest. A FiveThirtyEightanalysis of exit poll data from primaries that took place through May 3 found that the median income of Trump voters was $71,000 — just $1,000 shy of the figure for voters backing Ted Cruz, Trump’s only serious rival for the nomination throughout the contest.

And as a group, one of the most defining attributes of the white working class is that fewer of them are voting each year.

Sean Trende, an analyst at RealClearPolitics, noted that there were more than six million fewer white voters in 2012 than there were in 2008, accounting for population growth.

Trende sought to analyze a number of possible explanations for the decline in white votes, including the idea that Romney was able to mobilize fewer evangelicals, because they were wary of his Mormon faith.

Ultimately, Trende discarded that explanation: there simply wasn’t enough evidence. What he found instead was that the “missing white voters,” as he dubbed them, were “downscale, blue-collar whites.” And counties that trended towards Ross Perot’s 1992 independent bid – built on a populist critique the North American Free Trade Agreement – had some of the largest white populations who did not vote.

Prior to the 2014 midterm election, Pew Research Center polled white Americans about their candidate preferences based on their levels of financial security – using criteria like being able to pay bills and having adequate savings.

Only in the most secure segment of Americans did Pew find that a simple majority planned to support Republican candidates. As financial security decreased, the category that benefitted most was not the Democrats, but rather “OTHER/NOT SURE” – indicating that the person being surveyed was not heavily engaged in the political process, and unlikely to vote:

John Halpin, an analyst at the Center for American Progress who runs its “States of Change” project, provided figures derived from the Current Population Survey to The Intercept that show how large the voting disparities are between whites without a college degree (typically referred to as working class) and those who graduated college. In 2010, for instance, turnout among white working-class voters was 41.9 percent. For those with college degrees, the turnout was 63.5 percent. In 2012’s presidential election, 57 percent of working-class whites participated, while 79 percent of those holding college degrees took part.

These trends among whites mirror larger trends about voting and class. Even in the 2008 election, which saw the highest turnout in decades, the majority of Americans under the income of $30,000 did not vote, as Census data compiled by the think tank Demos shows:

In 2014, this reduced turnout left families earning six figures as the sole group where the majority of adults voted, as Demos showed:

If a candidate were to come along who was able to win most white working-class voters – and energize them enough to boost their overall voter participation – that would indeed be noteworthy. But the evidence so far suggests Trump isn’t that candidate.

Correction: August 12, 2016A previous version of this article incorrectly identified the percentage of eligible adults who took part in the presidential caucuses and primaries.

Top photo: Trump in Wilmington, North Carolina, on August 9, 2016.

We depend on the support of readers like you to help keep our nonprofit newsroom strong and independent. Join Us

Related

Contact the author:

Because white folk just love the idea of being overrun by the world’s motley ants come to the American picnic.

Uh huh.

In fact, they can’t wait to vote for a nasty, ugly, criminal old feminst hag to “rule” them.

Right.

Funny how no white guy I know thinks like that — and I’m an Ivy League graduate. One can only suppose working class whites are even more repulsed by “Cankles” while seeing Trump as the cocky quarterback made good.

This is entirely plausible. In the primary, the number of voters is tiny relative to the total number of voters. All Trump had to do to win is movilice die hard nativists. In the general, Republicans tend to vote for the Republican nominee. So even if he’s a total jackass, and highly unpopular, he’ll still get a substantial portion of the vote.

I think you also need to show the actual population sizes in each of those groups. I am fascinated as to how the wealthy minority can dominate American voting patterns when there seems to be a huge poorer majority that has no real voice. Are poor and struggling Americans too ashamed to promote and back politicians with socialist agendas? It seems that way.

I am amazed that no credible Independant has stepped forward and said “I will represent the needs of those people” and scoop up their votes.

Bernie Sanders was always going to be a Democrat first, and that meant ultimately kow-towing to the Crazy Clinton Bitch and handing over his supporters who no doubt hate Trump and the GOP more.

The elite that runs America clearly has less interest in Americans and domestic issues than they do in imposing their imperial will overseas. Koreans work harder, Vietnamese are cheaper, Brits are more innovative, Germans have better skills, Japanese are smarter. Their only aim is to take control of the globalised industrial world and the only place Americans seem to have in that is to slowly be sucked dry of taxes and “patriotically” man the imperial war machine that bullies the rest of the planet into submission.

Previous empires saw the wealth of its conquests flow back to the Motherland, but Americans will not even enjoy that as it will be given to world leaders, major bankers and financiers, global industrialists, arms manufacturers and mercenaries from all the places allied to the US as the cost of doing business.

This election could seriously be the last democratic thing to happen in the US and there’s not even a pathetic whimper to oppose the Dog & Pony charade being enacted by the two monstrocities on offer.

Well, he tried to hand us over to Clinton but a lot of us aren’t going. I can’t stand either of the presidential candidates. If the establishment Democrats had gone with Bernie, they would have gotten huge crossover votes. But they don’t give a damn. They’re just too stupid and very greedy.

You had me interested until you got to “OTHER/NOT SURE” – indicating that the person being surveyed was not heavily engaged in the political process, and unlikely to vote.
I answer what polls classify as “other” most of the time where the choice is not all inclusive of my beliefs but believe me I will not be staying home, I will be voting!
People voting “other” are those who would certainly choose “None of the Above” if it were placed on a ballot and no meaningful choice were available.

However, education is not the arbiter of class. Class is an economic category, not a category based on your knowledge of the U.S. legal code or Chaucer. People with college educations are frequently in working class jobs – either blue or white collar. For instance, a nurse might have a 1, 2 or 4 year certificate and yet not be a manager or boss. They are ‘pink-collar’ or white collar workers that make profits for their hospital through their labor. This example could be multiplied.

Additionally, college is not the only education, as trade schools are present in many jobs – even music. So ‘college’ is only a subset of post-high school education.

All this sloppy thinking obscures the real issue of class, which the U.S. obscures day in and day out.

No, I do not think that this is at all supported by the data. As everyone knows (for example here:http://www.fairvote.org/voter_turnout#voter_turnout_101) midterm elections attract about 20% fewer voters than presidential elections. So it was 46% less last time! According to the last link in this article (Demos, labeled “reduced”) this is significant. Well, I have my doubts about that.

But this sentence in this article:

In 2014, this reduced turnout left families earning six figures as the sole group where the majority of adults voted, as Demos showed:

followed by a graph illustrating the difference by showing the turnout for the previous Pres. election compared to the following midterm, without any accounting for how much of that drop is just normal expectations, is a blatant misuse of the data.

And so the conclusion of the final sentence:

If a candidate were to come along who was able to win most white working-class voters – and energize them enough to boost their overall voter participation – that would indeed be noteworthy. But the evidence so far suggests Trump isn’t that candidate.

Still waiting for the Intercept to do a detailed and truthful expose of the Clinton Foundation and its use of the State Department during Hillary’s tenure there for a vast variety of actors, including foreign governments, foreign and US corporate interests and for large donors. Without the Clinton Foundation’s network building, Hillary would not be in the running for President.

Also, I am curious – What do American voters think about the increasingly dynastic character of the US Presidency. Since 1989, three closely connected families have held the Presidency. That is 28 years and a most crucial period of history after the collapse of the USSR. All three of these establishment families seemingly have close CIA connections/ backing. All three families have furthered the neocon Project of American imperialism.

” When Abacha died in June 1998, a second State Department memo notes that Chagoury placed an in-flight call from his private plane to the U.S. embassy in Nigeria to report that he was in touch with Nigeria’s Provisional Ruling Council, which would be meeting later that day to discuss a successor to Abacha. In the phone call, Chagoury asked what governmental structure would be acceptable to U.S. officials, according to the memo.”

Well, I wouldn’t put too much stock in the polls right now.
It is the dog days of summer, and white working class voters have loaded up the family truckster for the annual cross-county trip to Wallyworld*, so they aren’t around to answer the phone when pollsters call.

*Walmart

But seriously, the numbers of white working class voters who are voting for the rich guy who doesn’t care about them at all, and the working class voters, particularly minorities, who are voting against their own interests by supporting Hillary are…

… whoaaaa!!!…

… did anybody else just hear a loud “MWAHAHAHA” coming from the direction of Wall Street?
Creepy.

Good one! Indeed, this article underscores how neither Hillary or Trump represent the common people, how neither of them can be trusted to uphold the interests of the common people and that the common people KNOW IT!

Alto’s comments are definitely a jewel sometimes. But when was the last time our politicians have accurately represented us? Some people say JFK, and look how that turned out (and honestly I dont think he was representative so much as identifiable and a bit of a kick to the status quo).

yawn. We’re not tax and debt slaves. Trump will need to end the gravy train, as he promised, the gravy train being the fed. Plus, he’ll need to lift the hemp prohibition. Then finally, if he wants us to “cherish” Israel, the establishment, he’s talkin’ out both sides his… Cheek talk gets no vote.

In the first poll isn’t it funny that the Republicans win in every percentile, until it gets to the poorest demographic (5). This proves D’Souza’s perspective of the “Urban Plantation” are true. Democrats are the party of slavery!

I don’t know when it will happen but I see a real opportunity coming up for a real demagogue to rally the people like Hitler did with the Germans. Trump is not the man and it is not yet the time and the security police state is gearing up to stop it but I’m not confident it can. The rich used to live in fear of the poor for centuries and brutally repressed any rising up of which there were many including in the USA (you didn’t learn that in school among other things) . Up to now the bread and circuses have worked for enough people to believe they have a stake in the system or at least fear losing what little they have but a real orator selling the truth as it is might put millions in the streets which is what it will take to overthrow the brutality existing now. I’m not sure the end result would be better, it was not in Russia, Vietnam, Afghanistan or others but they did prove, you can defeat the military of Amerika but defeating greed and corruption are harder. The Taliban are religious nut cases so it has mostly worked for them; Castro is an honest man who has survived a lot longer than anyone would have believed but Russia and Vietnam are totally corrupt capitalist societies so not much gain there other than the local crooks instead of foreign crooks run the place. Climate change will likely end us sooner than we think anyway. Shame the elites just won’t share a little.

Looks Like Trumpzilla has taken a wrong turn. So the question now is, what does Jill Stein have to do become a contender? Remember, Bernie Sanders started out about where Jill is now. So let’s list some stuff.

1. Jill Stein needs to get into the debates. We need strategies like: if they won’t let her into the corporate debates, Jill Stein debates the libertarian candidate in a debate put on by the League of Women Voters. The League of Women Voters can also invite Trump and Hillary if they want to and probably should.

2. Jill needs a ringer for Vice President, preferably a billionaire willing to drop some cash. Both Perot and Trump were able to crash the party because of their deep pockets. Jill is going to have to make nice nice with a Sugar Daddy of some kind.

3. She needs to find a stronger voice. She is too nuanced and equivocating. She needs to take a page from Bernie Sanders and state plainly and forcefully, in short declarative statements, what the problems are and what her policies are. She needs short positive affirmations, not long meandering policy white papers.

Things like:

Tax Wall Street, help Main Street.
Bankruptcy reform for student loans and shorten the recovery period.
New Deal 2.0 policies.
Stopping TPP.
A public option for healthcare
lifting the cap on Social Security.
Stopping Tax inversions.
and so on.
etc.

Jill Stein already has the Green Party nomination. She needs to broaden her support in the center. Socialism and tree hugging isn’t going to do that. She has to realize that being Green won’t make her president, but be president might make the country more Green.

I finally went and looked at some of Hillary’s policies. They aren’t too bad, mostly. IF she sticks with them. I don’t like the idea of nationalizing the police force, which seems to be a subtext of her criminal justice reform. She fudges and hedges a bit on things like lifting the cap on Social Security and taxing Wall Street.

If this were some other person pushing these policies I’d probably vote for them.

There would no need to reform student loan debt. She already has a plan that relies entirely on executive authority to wipe out all student loan debt, without costing taxpayers a dime. She also (correctly) refers to this as a stimulus package to jumpstart the economy.

The Green New Deal she proposes would create 20 million new jobs working on getting us to 100% renewable energy by 2030.

I got to meet her in person at a “Flush the TPP” rally over 2 years ago.

She skips the public option and calls for an improved Medicare for All plan.

She is forgoing the sugar daddy and instead has a VP meant to court Black Lives Matter. She is pursuing Bernie’s small donor strategy, and donations increased 1000% the week after Bernie endorsed Hitlery.

The slogans I have seen in her Tshirts.

Bail out students. Lock up bankers.

My heroes have always fought for the Republic and against Empire.

People, Planet, and Peace over Profit.

Vote for the Greater Good, not the Lesser Evil.

In response to Trump, her soundbite is “we don’t need a friggin’ wall, we just need to stop invading other countries”.

Yes, there are detailed white papers that drill down into details, but she has been pretty good at developing soundbite sized quickies.

She has a town hall scheduled for Aug 17 on CNN, hopefully it will give her a boost to 15% getting her into the debates. (Gary Johnson, of the Libertarian Party, got a massive boost after he was given such a town hall on CNN, and the CPD is preparing to potentially include him already) If not, 3rd party debates are also scheduled (as they were in 2012). At least
In 2012, it was hosted by the Free and Equal Elections Commission.

League of Women Voters seems to be concentrating on voter reg and voting rights issues. I am unable to find any debate info on their page.

I’ve got to second Maise’s view that John’s post was very good. Campaign’s should be defined by their platforms. Jill Stein is clearly advancing issues that will most resonate with the plight of the common man. I was not particularly pleased with her choice of Ajamu Baraka as a running mate however – although he is less given to theatrics then Jill; why is it that, whenever an aspiring candidate mounts the soapbox, they feel compelled to emotionally appeal to their followers by shouting their message. Jill Stein does best when she just sticks to the facts without all the hoopla. (Elizabeth Warren is making exactly the same mistake on behalf of Hillary).

The views of Ajamu Baraka on race alone are definitely radical progressive left as he has publicly referred to President Barack Obama as an “uncle tom president” and stated that Obama shows “obsequious deference to white power” (see Wiki). This type of racially divisive posture does not even appeal to black progressive centrists let alone the white average mean. If votes are the name of the game, then a moderate, balanced, and inclusive message are the key to success. Black Live Matter has recently attempted to reinvent itself because of their own poor reception as a radically left agent of social change by both Blacks and whites. We are entering into a reactionary period of socially regressive politics within America akin to that which is sweeping across Europe. To enter the arena at this late stage with a racially charged message that is far left of Bernie’s is a big mistake. Trump’s widespread popularity speaks to a sense of long simmering disquiet within America that runs deep and cuts across racial bounds. People of all color have suffered at the hands of greedy neoliberal elites who, over the last half century, have used America’s power and wealth to advance their own interests at the expense of the common man and the common good.

I agree with most of what you say. The racially charged aspect of our current politics is being driven by allegedly liberal media and the political class. They are literally dividing the nation by race and ethnicity for political gain.

So, Bernie is out, Jill is down and Trumpzilla is raging out of control and getting in a pissing contest with anyone who has a twitter account. I guess that leaves Hillary.

The Economist has a story on where Trumps supporters lie as far as income levels. They are saying his major support are those earning over $100K. He gets 64% of that vote. They also say that Trump gets 52% of the vote of people earning over $50K.

“Landline telephone numbers were randomly selected based upon a list of telephone exchanges from throughout the nation from ASDE Survey Sampler, Inc. The exchanges were selected to ensure that each region was represented in proportion to its population. Respondents in the household were randomly selected by first asking for the youngest male. ”

__

Working white males? Please. Sir, that “poll” is a bunch of crock.

Quit it, with the Trump bashing …you guys are really starting to look like a bunch of leftist clowns.

Here is graph showing that Presidential election years ALWAYS trend higher for voter turn out over the Off Years. The chart in the story is an apples-to-oranges comparison as 2012 was a presidential year and 2014 wasn’t.

Exactly, and thanks for saving me from having to post it. As there are no numbers in the chart, one can only rely on visual impressions but mine is that the relative proportions in 2014 were pretty much the same as in 2012; everything just slid to the left.

One distinct lesson from that chart is that without regard to income, most US citizens discount the power of Congress to implement policy. Is it because people no longer understand the separation of powers, or simply a recognition of the fundamental corruption and incompetence that reigns in both houses of Congress? That would be worth exploring!

The 2016 election could have voter turnout in the same amounts as the 2008 turnout. I know the article is trying to make a point with respect to lower income earning voters, but turnout is likely to be high. And that more times than not favors the non-incumbent.

The stats listed don’t hold water for me since they don’t involve Trump being the non-incumbent nominee. This is a much different candidate from a Romney or a Cain (so much so that Utah might actually vote donkey over elephant this year). Personally, I think the guy has .00000 chance of stepping into the Oval unless he’s delivering (or picking up) a suitcase of cash.

This year could be an exception, although it could go either way. One could argue that turnout will be low because both of the Party’s candidates are, well, despicable. On the other hand, the fearmongering about Trump is like nothing I have every witnessed – including the election of ’64 (Johnson’s famous ad with the nukes going off), and if people buy into it the turnout could be very high. Unlike Barry Goldwater, Donald Trump appears incapable of discipline at the microphone. He may soon learn that there really *is* such a thing as bad publicity.

The graph shown in this story is a comparison of a presidential year voter turnout and non-presidential year voter turnout (“Off Year”). Historically speaking, voter turn out in Off Years have always been 10-20 points under the presidential election years. See link

Exactly the reason why we are in this situation. It is the duty of every citizen in a democracy to be informed and participate in governance of the country. They taught us that in high school civics class.

And that’s exactly why employers keep their employees so busy and wear them out at work. Sure its every citizens duty but if your job wears you out too much, you don’t have energy to engage in politics. How deliberate….

Ever wonder if Trump’s wall will be used the way East Germany’s wall was, to keep the “white working class” from fleeing to countries with better standards of living, which would be an embarrassment to the state?

You already have those busloads of elderly Americans crossing into Canada to buy supplies of pharmaceuticals at much lower rates than in the U.S.; and you can get better personalized care from the Mexican health care system than in the U.S., although speaking Spanish is helpful.

As far as Trump vs. Clinton, either way it’s going to be a disaster of epic proportions. Basically everything the right says about Hillary is true, and everything the left says about Trump is true, and the corporate media is keeping the critical issues (like the bloated military budget) from being debating and locking out Green and Libertarian viewpoints.

Ah well. . . the first Trump-Clinton debate will be the comedic event of the year, at least we have that to look forward to; I wonder which dishonest media propaganda monkey will be overseeing it? It’s a real Tool Aenima moment. . . a bullshit three-ring circus sideshow of smiley glad-hands with hidden agendas, the only way to fix it is to flush it all away.

The following graph is interesting: shows that everybody in the whole western world lives (on average) longer since the year 2000, except for white middle aged Americans. All thanks to, amongst others, Mrs Clinton and her love for free trade agreements and endless wars that produces unemployment and ptss in white middle aged Americans. http://m.pnas.org/content/112/49/15078/F1.expansion.html

Just wonder what happened with the balance in the articles from the intercept when it relates to Trump. Isn’t this a job that journalists are supposed to do?

And why is there rarely attention at the Intercept for Jill Stein and her new Green deal?

Not newsworthy???

This graph shows you several causes of death in middle aged white Americans in which the following 3 steeply increased since 2000

1) poisoning (drugs)
2) suicide
3) liver disease (alcohol)

It appears to me that white middle aged Americans are desperately fighting for survival. And all the Intercept can say to this is: TrumpTrumpTrumpTrump.

Democrat or Republican ?.? put your hip boots on……oh yes interesting lies – but lies. Remember imports have gone too far to stop now?? Globalization at the expense of the workers. TPP for and against which ever way the vote is blowing.
Hilary was for it and the vote was against it so now she says no – B-U-T gets a running mate that’s for it…….vote at your own risk – your job is on the line

If a candidate were to come along who was able to win most white working class voters – and energize them enough to boost their overall voter participation – that would indeed be noteworthy.

As narrow as the focus is, this is a fairly interesting article. There is an old saying, “People vote their pocketbook.” More appropriate perhaps is the view that those with pocketbooks are more likely to vote. However, as the income bracket goes up, the number of votes goes down. So, at the end of the day, the sheer number of white middle-class voters are important. What is rather curious however, is that “whiteness” is even an issue in the discussion where both candidates are racially identical . I would have thought that the subject of gender would have been more revealing when determining voter patterns.

More to the point, the marked difference between the two leading presidential candidates might be better understood in terms of affective polarization. A great many voters are voting to prevent the greater of two evils from seizing power. The DNC was so concerned with Hillary’s lack of “likeability,” that they fielded a supplemental candidate in the 2016 primary that had the power to attract demographic segments that failed to support Hillary in her 2008 bid against an unknown black senator with a “neosocialist” bent. This 2016 strategy appeared to be on track but for the fact that “Bernie Bots” turned out to be far more astute and independent than expected. As a result the third party candidate, Jill Stein, has now become a fly in Hillary’s Buddha-Jumps-Over-The-Wall soup.

As trump would seem to be the beneficiary of Jill Stein’s growing voter appeal, the Neoconservative establishment has deemed it necessary to field their own third-party, anti-trump candidate, Evan McMullin, to tip the scales back toward Hillary. Apropos of the foregoing, a hindsight view of the 2016 race may be one wherein the all-NOing talking-heads will be forced to admit that the presidential winner didn’t lose merely by default.

Shame on Mr. Asange for saying it does not really matter who wins this election. Maybe not for him considering it’s not his home but for millions of Americans who will lose their healthcare if Trump wins it certainly does! Not to mention the fact that he is also threatening to rip up the nuclear deal, the Paris climate agreement and overturn Roe v. Wade… I would say it matters very much Mr. Assange.

This nuclear treaty that Trump would, according to you, tear up; is that the NNPT which obligates the nuclear powers to decommission their existing weapons? I’m not sure the Democrats are as on-board with that proposal as you think, given that Mr. Obama has proposed to spend trillions of dollars upgrading it. Or are you referring to the nuclear deal with Iran? The US has avoided calling it a treaty, since it reserves the right to rip it up at any time, whether Trump is president or not.

As for climate treaty; does it really make a big difference if you rip it up, or pay lip service to it while ignoring it?

Finally, Mr. Trump, as President, will not get a vote on the Supreme Court. He might get to appoint some justices, but they still have to be approved by the Senate. In any case, Mr. Trump’s views on abortion are unknown, as he has never given the same answer twice regarding this topic. But in any case, there has always been a dynamic equilibrium on this issue, producing a status quo which no one likes, and Trump appears unlikely to alter the balance very much.

So Mr. Assange’s analysis is essentially correct – from the point of view of the average citizen. But for the courtier class that lives in Washington, who wins is very important – their livelihood is at stake.

This may all be irrelevant, all The Trumpanzee has to do is win FL that Obama carried by less than 1%, Ohio that Obama won in 2012 by just over 1%, NC that Obama squeaked by on and Hillary wins only PA, then she’s got to win CO, WI, MI, VA–in other words, no room whatsoever for error in that case… The Trumpanzee is basically tied with her right now in NC, OH and FL despite everything he’s done. People are way overestimating Hil’s chance against this psychopath. Rather than watching the world literally go up in flames for the sake of deeply narcissistic, selfish and privilege ideals of the elite trust funders, I’m with Hil… –Your Good Friend, Jimmy :)

I think as of today, and the most recent polling re: NC, OH and FL, Clinton and Trump are not “basically tied”.

It appears Trumps polling in “swing” states or “battleground” states is falling rapidly. And arguably putting otherwise “red states” into play.

You could check and link current polling to support your arguments, but that’s not what I’ve seen/or am seeing over last week or so.

We’ll see, and Trump could “rebound”, but unless polling is way off, and continues to be way off over next 90 odd days, it looks like Trump has hit his ceiling and it won’t be enough not withstanding defections from both party’s nominal voters to either Stein, Johnson or not-voting/write-in voting.

We’ll see soon enough. I’m not fan of Clinton and am not voting for her, but I’ve been fairly consistent in arguing Trump will lose in a massive blowout. Again, I could be wrong, but the more the guy opens his trap in the lead up to the GE the more harm he does himself among every demographic group other than his “primary base”.

Unfortunately, as the white working class has grown more cynical, it has become harder for politicians to energize them. But if they cease to vote, I don’t see this as a major problem; there are many other demographics for politicians to exploit. So I don’t see the disillusionment of this one segment of the population as a harbinger for the death of democracy.

This is why immigration is so important to the United States. There may no longer be a sucker born every minute, but they can be imported. And once the white working class sinks low enough into poverty, they will become sufficiently desperate to place their faith, once again, in the promises of politicians.

Trump had a chance, but it is fading fast. If he had cut middle-class taxes and taxed Wall Street, he might have energized the middle-class. Instead, it looks like he is trying to sell us another round of trickle-down economics.